#,.;t


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
1:30 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
1``~^`
"( ~1
_9
~"'
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE t3ICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
I N D E X
September 6, 2005
1.1 Consider and discuss and take appropriate action
on the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
and budget, including staff positions, staffing
levels, designation of management personnel,
specifir_ation of salary gradelstep levels.
(Executive Session as necessary or appropriate)
1.2 Consider and discuss and take appropriate action
on county personnel issues in various departments,
including increase/decrease in staffing levels,
salary adjustments, reorganization, reclassification
and changes in job description. (Executive Session
as necessary or appropriate)
1.3 Consider and discuss approval by record vote of the
proposed EY 2005/2006 Tax Rate and set date, time
and place of first and second Public Hearings
--- Recessed
PAGE
3
22
59
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order, if
I might, the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled
for this date and time, Tuesday, September the 6th, 2005, at
1:30 p.m. It is a bit past that time now. The first item
on the agenda is to consider and discuss and take
appropriate action on the Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility and budget, including staff positions, staffing
levels, designation of management personnel, specification
of salary grade-slash-step levels. And there's a notation
that executive session as may be necessary or appropriate on
one or more of those particular subjects.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have entirely
too many pieces of paper.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, if it's open for
discussion, I've got -- to make sure that we're all going
off the same options, can someone enlighten me as to what
two options we're looking at today? I recall we were down
to a 48-bed or a zero-bed. Is that where we were?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We]1, that's sort of
9-~-`~ S
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where we were.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where you were.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's sort of where
we were. Then I think at the conclusion of the last
meeting, I asked a question -- which I thought was not
rhetorical, but might have been -- as to what would happen
if we pared down the census from the 31 or 32 that it is now
to fit into the 24-bed facility and staff accordingly?
Where would that take us? And I'd like to have an answer to
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have a 24 -- do we
have that option in front of us anywhere?
MS. HARRIS: You have a 24-bed pre.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pre?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not pre and post?
MS. HARRIS: Not a 24 pre and post, because
you sacrifice 16 beds for pre's alone, and that only leaves
you eight beds for post.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your dorm
structure -- is that the proper word? Dorm structure in the
new facility is -- is "X" of what? Two or three of what, or
four of what?
MS. HARRIS: There are three dorms, eight
beds each.
9-~ ns
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three of eight.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we had 24
juveniles in detention, one dorm reserved for pre and three
dorms reserved -- or two dorms, whatever, reserved for
post --
MS. HARRIS: You'd have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 8, 16, 24.
MS. HARRIS: You'd have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that work?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir, 'cause you'll have to
reserve two dorms for pre's; one for girls, one for boys.
And that only leaves you one dorm for post, and that's only
got eight beds on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the
scenario if we determined that -- that the facility would be
pre and post ma]e only? What would that do?
MS. HARRIS: You would have 24 beds available
that you could mix up any way that you needed to, because
you can put pre's and posts on the same dorm of the same
gender. You have to have separate staff, however. You
would need a staff -- if you had four boys -- pre boys and
four post boys on one dorm, you'd have to have two staff on
that dorm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But you can
9 E-n°:
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
2q
25
have male and female detainees in the same dorm; is that
correct?
MS. HARRIS: Not in the same dorm, no, sir.
You have to have males and females in separate dorms.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, then, the
minimum number of female detainees that would be reasonable
would be no fewer than eight; otherwise, you're wasting
staff; is that correct?
MS. HARRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd love to hear --
I left here at the last meeting with the same sort of
thinking that Jonathan expressed, that I thought we were
either at 48 or none, 48 or shut it down. And if we got
there, then the remaining question is how to organize it.
I recall that there were significant expense differences in
the case presented by Kevin Stanton than there were by -- by
the Juvenile Detention Facility, I think $300,000 a year
difference in costs. Following that train of thought, then,
I wondered if 50 of the 52 facilities in Texas are organized
under the Juvenile Probation Department, then doesn't that
suggest that that's the best model? How are we -- why are
we out of step with -- with 96 percent of the facilities?
Why aren't we organized like 50 of 52 other facilities?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question.
y-F-os
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Z4
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Particularly if it
costs a lot less money?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That question, I
think, goes to the heart of the dilemma, and it goes to what
two separate individuals believe is an operational
possibility, and I thought that's what we wanted to try to
get to the bottom of today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- and that's
why I think I brought up at the last meeting an executive
session, because I think when we start going too far down
that road, we get into personnel questions that -- you know,
that I believe qualify for executive session, because it
comes down to asking both the Juvenile Probation Officer and
Ms. Harris, the Facility Administrator, about specific
personnel, and I just -- I think it's awkward to put that --
ask, you know, those questions in open session.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For either one of them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we build that
organizational model, then it appears to me that there's
five jobs in jeopardy, and that's an executive session
discussion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see a slight nod that
we're on the right wavelength from the County Attorney.
a a-~as
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
77
23
24
25
Judge, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His head's going in
the right direction; it's going up and down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not often -- it's not
always going that direction, I might add. Judge, I request
we go into executive session to talk about personnel in the
juvenile facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple
questions I want to ask before we go in there, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may want to take
this information in. And one has to do with -- one of the
proposals is that we can take in $115 a day and $85 a day,
and if my memory serves me well, we just recently signed
some contracts at $83 a day. Now, how is that going to
work? Can we change those contracts, or do we just rock
along at $83 a day for a year now before we can kick in the
$85? Or -- you know, it's just -- how is that going to
happen? How does that work?
MR. EMERSON: Do you want an answer from me?
I think there's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. EMERSON: -- two options there. The
first is you propose an addendum to the counties that you're
already dealing with and see if they'll approve it without
y-~~-a~~
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
essezitially affecting the contract that you have one way or
another. The other way is that you go out and you try to
materially change the contract by changing the rate, in
which case the county will have an option to either accept
it or to either drop dead and pull their kids if they
haven't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, on that -- the -- I
mean, the proposal I'm looking at shows $83 and $115. I
don't see $85 anywhere on the two that I'm locking at.
That's not to say that they're not, because we certainly
have enough proposals. But for us to get to the $115 for
the sexual offender-type kids, that we have to amend the
contract with those counties?
MR. EMERSON: I think to get to the $115,
most of your contracts do not allow for the specialized
treatment, okay? Our standard contract did not, 'cause I
didn't even know that existed when we drew it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: And I think, realistically, if
my understanding is correct, because the counties are
theoretically -- if a child meets the criteria, is
reimbursed by the State for the $115, I don't think you're
going to find a county under those terms that would balk at
an addendum going on the contract saying that if the child
needs specialised treatment, then they'll be -- the payment
9 d 0_
10
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be at the higher State-reimbursed rate. Now, I don't
thin Y, you could qo in and just send them a whole new
contract with different amounts on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other, I
guess, thing on the expenditure side that we touched on at
the last meeting was transportation costs. And, as I
recall, we are currently going and picking up the kids and
bringing them back at no cost to the county.
MS. HARRIS: Not all of the kids. It`s just
if a probation officer is in a bind for whatever reason and
cannot transport the juvenile the entire way, we would go
get the kid. But then, when it came time for discharge,
they would come pick the kid up; kind of a trade-off.
Sometimes we meet probation officers halfway, or sometimes
we don't have to go get the kid for intake or during
discharge. It's just that it's available if the probation
officer needs us to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would seem -- and
we're not talking about big bucks, I don't think, here. It
does affect personnel. It seems that -- do our contracts
allow us to recoup that if we choose to?
MR. EMERSON: I don't think that issue's
addressed at all in the contracts, as far as transportation
of the juveniles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I don't -- I
~~-h-.;~
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, it just seems -- I don't know how much we're
transporting, but if we're up to -- if we go with a 98-bed
facility, there's potentially a fair amount of
transportation around, and I think that the County -- I
wouldn't know why we would absorb that cost. I mean, I
think we -- we may provide a service for the cost of just
whatever the mileage reimbursement rate is at, the state
level, which is 40.5 now, I think. But I wouldn't know why
we would not get that reimbursement. You know, but I think
that if the contracts don't allow for that, that should also
be -- either add it to the contract or -- and I wouldn't --
maybe that's even a separate agreement. I mean, it wouldn't
be that hard. If they're doing some of the transport
themselves, we clearly -- when we send our kids, I'm under
the impression that we transport them to and from the
facilities that we use. Therefore, I would think that other
counties should transport to and from where they use, or pay
to have that done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have for the
open session portion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, my contract
question, the answer is that it's very unlikely that we
~i-t;-ns
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
would be able to charge the new numbers until the
following -- for another year?
MR. EMERSON: The answer to that is yes.
Keeping in mind that, at least since I've been here in the
last eight months, there's -- just about every month,
there's been one or two contracts rolling around for
renewal, so it would be kind of an ongoing transition
process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: You couldn't draw a line in the
sand and say October lst, this is what we're going to
charge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I think
that's kind of what we're basing some of our -- these
numbers are kind of based on these new numbers, in my mind,
cranking up October 1. And we -- so you're answering my
question; we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said that we
could amend the contracts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but they won't
take it.
MR. EMERSON: I think you can send out
addendums, and I don't think -- and Becky could probably
answer this better than I r_an since she's dealt with the
other facilities, but I -- I don't understand why a county

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
would balk at the $115 rate for a sexual -- a child
undergoing special treatment for sex offender conditions if
that's the rate they're reimbursed at from the State, 'cause
the county's not going to lose anything. It's no additional
cost to the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. EMERSON: Now, having said that, I think
you might run into something if, all of a sudden, you decide
you're going to go from $83 to $87 a day and you want to
increase the rate, that is affecting the county's
poc}cetbook.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And under your --
this is both -- probably both to Kevin and Becky. Under the
scenarios, there are how many -- well, how many beds are
allocated for that sexual abuse?
MS. HARRIS: The -- the one budget that I did
for you had 10, and that was the 48-bed budget, and I put 10
sex offender beds in there at $115. And then the one that I
gave you last week was another 48-bed, and I had increased
that sex offender to a possible 18. I agree with -- with
Rex that an addendum to the contract by which you outline
that, come October 1, we would r_harge the maximum amount for
the sex offender kids that are sent there that are
court-ordered there for sex offender treatment, as long as
they meet one of those three criteria for registration.
G n, p 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
That's what allows the county to be reimbursed that $115 a
day. And I don't think that we would have a problem with
the counties, especially the counties that are sending us
sex offenders right now, such as Guadalupe County. We're
number one on their list for sex offender. E1 Paso and
Amarillo are sending us a lot of sex offenders, and I don't
believe that they would have a problem with that addendum.
I do agree with Rex that if you were to change the other per
diem rate from $83 to $85 or $87, then I think that's where
you -- we would run into problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many counties in your
discussions are going to be using the sexual offender beds?
You mentioned three just now. I mean, any of them could.
MS. HARRIS: Any of them could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But how many are we in
discussions with right now, having those kids in our
facility?
MS. HARRIS: Well, the three that I
mentioned, and I know that Bexar County has indicated some
interest. Those four have been in direct dialogue on sex
offender kids. Some of the smaller west Texas counties may
jump on board on that, because I know that they get one
periodically. Lubbock may be another avenue. We get a lot
of Lubbock's substance abuse kids. We may get some of their
sex offender kids. I did get a phone call from Wise and
-y-ns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
15
Jack County; that's under the same Probation Department.
That has a couple of sex offender kids that they're looking
at to send us, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you anticipate it
being at $115, that we could probably fill those beds up?
You're relatively confident of that? I mean, it seems to me
that if there's a demand for that service, and the State's
picking up the difference, I would think it's a pretty high
likelihood that they would amend the contracts at the $115
rate like Rex said.
MS. HARRIS: Right. Now, Bexar County had
indicated, bark when we were negotiating the contract with
Bexar County -- that was back in February, I believe, is
when that was. That was when the -- the chairman of the
Juvenile Board, who was also the juvenile judge, had
indicated that he was seeing more juveniles coming across
his docket that were committing sexual offenses at the
junior high age level. We have not gotten any kids from
Bexar County for sex offender treatment at this point in
time, but that's not to say that we wouldn't. But he did
indicate that they were seeing more of those kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your turn.
y t~ ~~ 5
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Harris -- let me follow up
on it. In your discussion with these jurisdictions that are
talking to you about sending sex offender treatment
residents, have you indicated to them that the new state
reimbursement rates, as long as they meet that
qualification, that it is your intention or the intention of
Kerr County to charge that reimbursement rate for those --
for those residents?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir, I haven't said anything
to anybody, 'cause I didn't want to get the cart before the
horse.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: So I -- no, sir, I have not said
anything to any of those counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what does our
contract say? What is the amount in our contract?
MS. HARRIS: $83 a day.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the contract does not
provide for any specialized treatment at that level, and
what I heard the County Attorney saying was that the
addendum would provide for specialized treatment services.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what would trigger
the higher rate. Is that what I heard, Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes.
~_,,_r~~
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
7q
25
MS. HARRIS: We didn't know about this sex
offender reimbursement rate at $115 a day. We didn't know
about that until July, that that was going to be a change
that T.J.P.C. had made, and that that money was going to be
available.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, are these sex
offenders? Are they registered sex offenders?
MS. HARRIS: There's three -- one of three
ways that the juvenile has to qualify for that 115. They
could be registered only with law enforcement; in other
words, the general public would not know that that juvenile
was a registered sex offender, or be registered for the
general public purposes, or be on deferred registration,
which would mean it would be up to the presiding judge to,
in essence, tell that kid, "I'm going to send you to a sex
offender treatment program. You have to successfully
complete that program, and if you don't, when you come back
to court I'm going to register you as a sex offender."
Which that's called deferred registration.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARRIS: So, to get the $115
reimbursement, the kid has to be one of those three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And you had
said previously in here that it is very unlikely we'll ever
get one registered sex offender.
- F - 7 S
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
MS. HARRIS: Registered. That's registered
with the Department of Public Safety or any other law
enforcement -- or registered to the general public. Now,
deferred registration, that's a very good possibility,
'cause judges can do that to hold something over that kid's
head to participate --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: -- in treatment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the number of sex
offenders currently in detention, how many fall in the
categories one, two or three?
MS. HARRIS: That we presently have right
now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. HARRIS: Three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of how many?
MS. HARRIS: Five -- I'm sorry, excuse me.
Seven.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three out of seven.
And where are the others? Where are they?
MS. HARRIS: The other four would possibly
fall under that deferred registration. Now, the judge --
the presiding judges of those kids did not do that, but
that's not to say that -- that they might not be willing to
do that. But three of the kids are registered.
9 5 0 5
1
3
4
J
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
19
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you know, Becky,
how many contracts -- how many contracts do we have in total
Wlth OOUnt].eS?
MS. HARRIS: I would say right at 50, total.
And you've got --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's staggered
throughout the year in terms of --
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. And you've also got
to remember that not all of those are our contract that the
County Attorney wrote, because some of the counties use
their own contracts. Bexar County, El Paso County, Tarrant
County, Tom Green County. Some counties use their own
contracts. Now, I know in Tom Green County's, there is a
specification in there for specialized treatment rates, so
we wouldn't have to redo the Tom Green County contract.
It's already in their contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it?
MS. HARRIS: It goes to the 115. They had
plugged in the new reimbursement on theirs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the only other
question I have is this letter to Becky from Rex in regards
to the A.D.A. problems out there. Still don't know?
MS. HARRIS: Perry from DRG came out to the
facility -- it was Wednesday or Thursday; I can't remember.
He looked at the parking lot and looked at our drainage
±-o-OS
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
system, and he was given a copy of that letter that Judge
Tinley faxed over to the facility. Gave him a copy of that
and indicated to Perry we need somebody to come out and
inspect for A.D.A. compliance, and Perry's response was not
forthcoming, so we're still at an impasse on -- 'cause it's
Perry -- it's DRG's responsibility to send an inspector out
there to inspect it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, is the facility
certified or blessed or whatever you want to call it by the
State?
MS. HARRIS: As far as A.D.A. is concerned,
no, sir, because DRG needs to get an inspector out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that hold us up
in any way?
MS. HARRIS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The function? Okay,
fine. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That has only to do
with the that front parking area?
MS. HARRIS: Yes. But the inspector would
also need to verify that the A.D.A. fixtures that were out
of compliance inside have been rectified, which they have,
but you just need an inspector to say that it has.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, just this one
sentence in here from the A.D.A. Support Group says, "If we
S-E-US
21
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do not receive a response to this notice, we will be
required to refer this matter to T.D.L.R. Enforcement." And
that looked like a pretty serious sentence to me. The word
"enforcement" makes me think that there is some kind of
state law that we're not complying with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably had that same
thing on the bathroom when we remodeled the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's juvenile
facilities and bathrooms -- nevermind. All-righty. What
are we doing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be handled in
open session with regard to this issue? If not, we will go
out of open or public session at 1:59, and we will go into
closed or executive session with regard to personnel matters
at the facility. Obviously, we'll need the reporter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need --
JUDGE TINLEY: We need Ms. Harris and -- and
Mr. Stanton, I presume.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather have them one
at a time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One at a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: One at a time? Who do you
want first?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Harris; she's
9 ¢~ - U 5
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sitting there, and the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- okay.
(The open session was closed at 1:59 a.m.,
and an executive session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We will resume in public or
open session. It is 4:47. Ms. Rector, with regard to Item
3 on today's agenda, we've still got quite a bit of work to
do on 1 and 2, and in connection with the timetable that you
gave me for Item 3, is it going to present a problem if --
if we take that up tomorrow by virtue of a recess today, and
then pick back up where we left off tomorrow?
MS. RECTOR: I think if you just recess and
take it back up tomorrow, we'll be okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Item 2 on our agenda is to consider and discuss and take
appropriate action on county personnel issues in various
departments, including increase-slash-decrease in staffing
level, salary adjustments, reorganization, reclassification,
and changes in job description, with executive session as
may be necessary or appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, in our
earlier discussions, there were -- as we went through each
department, there were a number of proposals on changes in
3-~-.5
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
staffing level or changes in classifications or salaries or
whatever. I'd like to start off with an overview of
staffing levels that includes a proposal to -- to change the
budget. It would have a net effect of reducing the
employment level by 14 and a half people. I want to make it
clear that what I'm proposing is that we will reduce the
salary line item on several budgets of either departments of
people that report to the Commissioners Court or elected
officials. It doesn't deal with identifying what specific
individuals would be surplus; it deals simply with the line
item on the budget that deals with salaries. And I'm just
going to go over this first, and then I think that we'll
invite some discussion.
First department I've got on here is
Information Technology, and that department asked for an
additional full-time staff, and I'm proposing that we leave
that item in the budget. For Road and Bridge Department,
I'm not proposing any reductions, and I've noted that over
the past few years, they've made significant reductions in
their employment levels. I'll deal with Facilities and
Maintenance and Animal Control in one -- one statement. I'm
proposing that we merge Animal Control with Fa~~ilities and
Maintenance, and we reduce the total staffing there by a
total of two employees. Juvenile Detention, I'd propose
that we reduce staff by five, but that's going to be dealt
3 - ~ - G 5
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
24
25
with in another budget scheme, so I won't deal with that
here today. Collections Department, no change. County
E::tension Office, I recommend that we abolish the fourth
agent position. That's the job that's been vacant for some
time. Environmental Health, I note --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the
Entension -- and I'm guessing with that, we don't add the
new position that was requested?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No -- yes, and
reduce the staffing there by one. Environmental Health, I
note that that department's grown by one and a half since we
established it, and I'm recommending that we cut that staff
by one. Sheriff's Department, I note that the Sheriff has
abolished two jobs from the last budget period, and has
requested an addition of two different positions for no net
change, and I'm suggesting that there should be a net effect
of minus one there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that above and beyond
what the Sheriff's done, or --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, that includes
what he's done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, no change from
what his proposed --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's proposing to
add two; I'm asking, can you get by with adding one.
~i-;-os
zs
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
21
22
~3
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Instead of two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: District Clerk, I
don't propose any changes. Tax Assessor/Collector, I
recommend we budget for two fewer positions. County Clerk,
I recommend that we budget for two fewer positions. The
Treasurer, I recommend that we eliminate the part-time job,
the halftime job, and that we move the employment function
to Commissioners Court and add a part-time job there.
County Attorney is -- by his proposal, is down one; he
previously abolished a job. Justice of the Peace, I'm
proposing that we relocate J.P. 1 and 2 to a close proximity
here in the courthouse, and that they share a clerk,
reducing staff by one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 and 2, or 1 and 3?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1 and 3. I always
get that wrong, Commissioner. Thank you. Constables, no
change. And the Auditor, I propose that we agree to leave
one-half part-time -- agree to the one-half part-time. I
think it's converting a part-time to full-time or whatever;
he asked for one-half person additional in his salary item,
and that we add JDF billing to that function.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That reduction's
9 - o - U S
26
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
going to be 14 and a half, and the estimated savings will be
about $500,000 a year. These changes are consistent with
the fact that we have -- that show that we're an e:;pensive
county and that we have more employees than any other county
our size. It's not a solution to that overstaffing, but
it's a step in the right direction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure -- I mean, I'm
not going to touch on the other elected officials; I figure
that they can speak for themselves on that. The questions
I'm going to have are on Facilities and Maintenance and
Animal Control. Can you walk me through how you combine
those two? I mean, just to -- as to -- they seem like very
different functions to me. I mean, I could see Animal
Control and Environmental Health closer together than I can
Maintenance and Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They are different.
It's a stretch. And it's -- what I do see is that both of
them deal with maintaining facilities and with custodial job
functions, and -- and I think there's some synergy to be
gained by having the two of them managed by a single
individual. It's kind of a stretch, I admit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was that way years
ago.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it was. I
~-E,-os
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
believe. Wasn't it? Wasn't it, Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Say that -- I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you not used to
have a combination of Animal Control and Maintenance?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I
thought. I don't know how effective it was, but it was that
way.
MR. HOLEKAMP: In fact, at that time --
excuse me -- Environmental Health, which was Solid Waste,
Animal Control, and Maintenance at that time. It wasn't
called Facilities Use; it was just called Maintenance, but
that is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically what you're
doing is you're combining the supervisory position, and the
actual -- you're not changing the --
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's a reduction.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not -- I'm
looking at a different organization chart that's got no
names in it, that's blank. I'm not proposing who would head
this -- this newly created department, but it would reduce
the supervisory position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: P.educe a supervisor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, and it would
reduce another position.
9 6 u 5
28
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, how do you want
to proceed? Do you want these various departments -- I see
10 of the 18 that you list for all practical purposes report
to Commissioners Court through their department heads. Do
you want some assessment from them back as to the
practicality? How do you want to approach it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, as we
went through each individual department, we talked about
their justification for needing the budget levels that they
proposed, and	I don	't	see any --	any	reason to go back
through that	now.	It'	s obviously	a -	- a difference of
opinion on it. It -- the combined total of all of our
fun~~tions are -- in the opinion of those that head the
functions, they're justified in having an extraordinarily
high level of employment compared to other counties our
size. I don't think I'm going to see any minds changed on
that. I'm just suggestinq that this Commissioners Court, if
there's ever going to be any reconciliation of our
employment levels, has to -- has to take a position that
we're not going to budget for and pay for employment levels
that we deem to be too high.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to ask
the Auditor a question as soon as he gets through visiting
bark there. And he is not one of our employees, either.
-6-os
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But you're talking about adding, I think, this Juvenile
Detention Facility billing. Is that your JDF --
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Juvenile. Weren't you
talking about taking on possibly some indigent health care
billing as well? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: That was my proposal, was to
take on the indigent health care payments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, Tommy, I
can't hear.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right now we're contracting
with a firm -- a Houston firm to -- to make our indigent
health care payments to our local vendors. And the Social
Services Department at Sid Peterson Hospital essentially
have a manual system that they use to -- to approve people
for indigent health care, and I'm proposing to -- to take on
the payments in lieu of contracting with -- with this
Houston firm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I got that
wrong, Commissioner. Your proposal was to convert a
part-time job to full-time?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the rationale
was what?
g-e v=~
30
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, right now we pay that
Houston firm 4 and a half percent --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- of our indigent health
care bills, which is around $32,000. So, my request was to
change my part-time person into a full-time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My note was wrong,
Commissioner. That's what I'm thinkinq about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm saying here
is that -- and other thing Tommy didn't say is that the cost
of the auditing department has dropped over the last year or
two be~~ause of him cutting back his hours, What I'm saying
is, I'm supporting it. I think we should support that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, adding a half a
person onto the half that's already there --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- would make the one
full-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's taking back
the billing, which helps pay for that. Which -- which does
pay for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's almost --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we pay that firm
in Houston now:
~ f-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, so far this year, we've
paid them $32,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's half a spot.
We're coming out ahead, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it helps -- it helps
Sid Peterson, too. I mean, it streamlines their -- their
process of qualifying people for indigent health care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at -- I'll just
start with some of the ones that are -- Justice of the
Peace; I think that's worth exploring. I think that's an
interesting idea. I know there was opposition to doing
that. I don't know that we can do it. I mean, it's -- it
seems like a difficult thing to do right now, I mean, 'cause
we'd have to change offices and -- you know, someplace in
that area, but I think that's a very good thing to look at
really seriously, because I think there should be a way to
combine those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You notice Precinct 4
is not in this thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner? Could
you enlighten us on your -- your comment with respect to
Commissioners Court? Assume employment function --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking for some
synergy there. I think we've observed that we have --
currently have a difficult issue in that communications and
- F - U 5
32
1
2
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
answering the telephone and all that is sometimes
overwhelming, so I'm trying to find a way to -- to get some
relief there, but by not adding to our total employment
costs in general. The -- the processes of enrolling new
employees and doing the personnel action forms and handling
benefits and that sort of thing I think could be added to a
job that provides some -- some -- allows Kathy Mitchell to
stretch her work more without adding to the total staff, and
that's why I'm proposing to transfer that from the
Treasurer's department and allow that part-time person to
handle some of the overload in Kathy Mitchell's job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
somewhat agree with that, but I would also like to add to
that. I think the booking of the -- of the Youth Exhibit
Center should also come to Commissioners Court. And I don't
know if it -- one-half person is enough, but I think there's
a -- it frees up a slot in Maintenance by moving that up
into this office, and then, likewise, moving some of the
answerinq phones, other clerical responsibilities away from
Ms. Mitchell and bringing that up. And I think that,
actually, you could, you know, add a half up here and get
rid of one half elsewhere, or maybe one elsewhere. I don't
know if it totally gets rid of -- I don't know how much of
that time the Maintenance Department has devoted to that,
but there certainly is at least half a position, so you
~-~-u=.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
could get rid of two halves and add a whole, and we're a net
decrease.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But as far as booking
the Ag Barn facility, you know, if you get -- we get a half
a person up here, or a halftime person, how is that person
going to be able to go and show the Ag Barn? I mean, by
scheduling tours? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scheduling.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't see all
that working, in my mind, but I'm certainly not saying that
it won't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think scheduling. I
mean, I think that's something we'll have to look at. You
know, you may have to rely on -- I mean, we have a
maintenance person out there almost all the time. That
person can still show the facility; they just won't enter
into contract discussions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's how
its accomplished, that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that's how
other facilities -- I mean, there's no reason to have, you
know, the contract person out there discussing -- I mean,
giving -- we should have a contract that is pretty clear.
We have a fee schedule; hand that to people. They go out,
they show them the facility, come back and ask questions of
-~,-os
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
the person in here. On the Extension Office, I would
probably rather bring in the new spot, which is not -- isn't
that funded by a different department?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's funded, about probably EO
percent or better, by the State.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't, I mean, the
new one that I believe Kevin was going to put under his
department coming out of his department? That new --
JUDGE TINLEY: That part-time, yes. That
would be -- that would be out of state IV-E money, and
that's limited purpose money. That can only be used --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The job I'm thinking
about -- maybe I'm confused. Something in here is the one
that's been vacant for some time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the one, that
family --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Family and
Consumer --
JUDGE TINLEY: Consumer science, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they've had --
they've had that position open, and it's been a stretch for
them to get by without it, but the stretch is okay. They
seem to be doing pretty well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with
you; I think that can continue.
9-5-u5
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only -- just
remember that those are primarily state money. Doesn't mean
we shouldn't spend it, but that doesn't impact our -- we
don't get an employee off of that. It's a quarter of an
employee, or a third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably about a third.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A third. But, anyway. I
don't have a real problem with leaving that spot vacant
for -- I mean, certainly for a while.
DODGE TINLEY: It's going to be an
interesting conversation with the district supervisor when I
talk to her tomorrow, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give her Number 4's
number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got it handy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to the -- what
are the -- the possibility of combining Environmental Health
and Animal Control and/or Maintenance with it, as it was at
one point? Is that something we should even entertain?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think my question to
that would be, why did we break it out in the first place?
If those things were together at one time, what was the
reason that we separated them out? Mr. Holekamp?
Commissioner Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The reason it was -- it was
~-~-us
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
36
taken apart was because U.G.R.A. contracted to do the --
were doing the environmental and the septics. Then it came
back here, and Miguel and them went ahead and started to do
solid waste.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the old
scenario, you only had -- you only had solid waste?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. I just had a
part-time person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County
contracted out for O.S.S.F.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Doing inspections; that is
correct. We didn't do any septics when --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- I was there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- since I don't see
anyone jumping up to talk, does either the ones that are
affected -- Treasurer, County Clerk, Tax Assessor, or
Sheriff -- want to comment on the proposal?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Sheriff one, only
thing I can comment, he's still adding one instead of the
two security, and to me, I've told y'all all along the
security is an issue that I think this Court and everybody
has to make. If we do not get the panic system through the
grant deal that we're doing and that's not figured in, and
if we can get through Judge Tinley and what we've been
~-~-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
~0
21
,~
23
24
25
37
talking about with the District Judges and having more court
out there in that J.P. courtroom instead of a lot of those
mundane ones here -- just like, you know, pretrials and
that; not the hearing, even that one extra one that you're
still adding, that's courthouse security. Okay. If we got
the panic system, it probably should be there. If we can
get some of this other stuff, then that one may not even --
I hate to say it may not be needed. We need more courthouse
security.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that paid for out
of a separate courthouse security fund?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Part of that does come
out of fees, but it's only paying, I think, like right
now -- Tommy may correct me if I'm wrong -- with the
salaries and all the equipment we have now, it's about a
$99,000 budget, and I think it's paying about 38,000 or
39,000 of that. So, the County's budget is paying about
5,000 for courthouse -- or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As it exists today?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As it exists today.
Now, I don't think the courthouse fees -- the security fees
are going up in any of the new stuff on court costs and
that, so that's going to stay about the same. You'll get
about 38,000, 39,000 in revenue, but any of this additional
would cost the County. I'll leave it kind of at that.
a-c.-u~
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about
Environmental Health? Mr. Arreola?
MR. ARREOLA: Well, it's like we discussed it
in the prior meeting; it's the service we provide to the
community. So, it's -- we have it right, the staffing level
we have. On solid waste, we do need more. On O.S.S.F., the
way we have it is -- it's just right. Cutting one person
will affect the service.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else over here?
MS. NEMEC: Cutting a part-time employee in
my office and hiring a part-time employee in the County
Commissioners office and letting them do enrollment, and I'm
not sure what else y'all had in mind, but there's no way our
office is going to be able to function that way. If we take
the duties of the insurance enrollment and whatever else you
had in mind and put them in the County Commissioners Court,
all that's going to do is alleviate my chief deputy from
working overtime, which this week she's off every day this
week trying to take off some comp time. My part-time
person, what she does is she does revenues and she pays
bills. And the Auditor's office works very closely with us,
and if -- if y'all are going to want to cut, I suggest that
y'all go and spend a week in my office, and I think y'all
will know that that's not possible. Or talk to the
Auditor's office, because I think that they know that
~-~-o=,
39
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's no way our office could function that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any comments you'd
like to make, Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: I'm kind of scared to, 'cause
it's very upsetting. Because Mr. Nicholson's not really
been in our office to see what we do. I have 15-plus
departments in there, and we're already doing multiple
duties, so I don't know how I'm supposed to cut. And I've
justified my employees when I presented my budget. We have
no room for play.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: I want to comment on the other
counties that we are being compared to, and the duties in
those other offices are not the same. And I gave some
statistics last year on some of those counties. Some of
them contract away their collections. They contract away
their voter registration and do nothing but vehicle
registration, and have almost the same amount of staff that
I have. Texas Department of Transportation is also saying
that I am under-computerized, understaffed in my Vehicle
Registration Department; that they gauge it on 50,000
transactions per clerk per month. We are doing way more
than that. We've already hit the 50,000 registration mark,
which I explained to the Court would be an additional dollar
that we will be collecting on those registrations. If
~_E_,_,s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
anyone would like to come and stand in line in my office,
like I have especially today, my clerks are overworked. I
don't see how in the world that Commissioner Nicholson can
think that I can do with two less people in my office.
Absolutely no way. When we get into tax time, I invite
Commissioner Nicholson to come and work in my office in tax
time. Come in and work in my office in Vehicle
Registration, and see if he thinks that there's room for me
to cut my staff. I have one more person in my office than
was in there 25 years ago, and this county has grown
tremendously in 25 years. So, just the idea of even
thinking about my staff being reduced is -- it's out of the
question. I am already overworked. My books are so far
behind because I stay covered up with everything else I'm
trying to do. My staff stays behind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's the bottom
line. We have each year attempted to, and have done --
found a way to provide a cost-of-living adjustment for all
of Kerr County's employees. It is my personal goal to do
that again this year, and I think there's -- there's others
on this Court who share that position with me. But you're
going to have to help us find those dollars. They're not
here. You're going to have to help us find those dollars.
They are not here, period.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other elected official or
-h-,, .,
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
department head have any comment they wish to make?
MS. UECKER: Well, I just want to comment on
something that the Sheriff said about the security out at --
holding pretrials out there. You know, we've tried to do
this before, but what you don't understand is when pretrials
go out there, so does the clerk, without a computer, and so
do all of those files. And we've tried this before, and
we've had to have people just load all of this up and take
it out there. The way it is now, when I -- when I have --
with 198th -- no, 216th pretrials, I have to have two clerks
in there anyway. Now, I don't know how they intend to work
that, but the way -- the way it is, at least they can come
back and forth when they're doing discovery motions that
might take more than 30 minutes or so, and continue to
perform their duties. But if they're out there, they can't
go back and forth. So, you know, I don't know how that's
going to work.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we've got just
about all the department heads and elected officials here
now that -- that supervise a number of people. We don't
have the J.P.'s or the constables, but we've got most of the
people who can control the employment levels for the county,
and we hear the same thing time and time again. We've got
more people and more expense than any other county of the 14
that are our size, and it didn't happen on anybody's shift.
9-o-OS
42
1
3
4
G
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
~~
23
~4
25
There's one or two of you that have made an effort to cut
back on staffing. The Sheriff has and Rex has and some
others, but the rest of you are saying there's good and
sufficient reason that we need more people than those other
13 counties in our functions, and I don't believe that. I
think we need to find out how those other counties operate
with fewer people, and then take on those best practices and
cut our staffing levels to be -- I don't want to -- I don't
want to be the best. I don't expect that. I'd just like to
not be in dead-last place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will make a comment,
that -- I don't want Rusty to get mad at me, but we have
increased his staff substantially since I've been a
Commissioner. So, I mean, I don't know where he ranks on
the numbers, but, you know, I don't want Rusty to be
standing out there as a -- as a big staff cutter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I take that back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because he's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I'll say,
if you remember, we gave back already --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- four jailers before
this year when they increased it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, you have.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And what I'm saying,
i_r ~,~
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~^
23
24
25
43
even on this one security personnel issue, I think we have
survived, you know, with where we're at now with security
officers. We've been very fortunate there hasn't been
anything major happen. As far as having, you know, one
person here, there's going to be. Now, that one extra
position, you know, I don't mind cutting back too, 'cause
the camera system's not going to be -- be a deal, so you're
cutting one of those. And the one extra position -- I'm
saying that I would recommend we increase security at this
courthouse, but what I'm also saying is that if the clerks
and -- and the Court feel comfortable with it, I think y'all
know what the security issues are around here too; that we
don't add even that second position here, okay? Being the
current one we have and one more. Then don't add that one
more, you know. I mean, we'll -- we'll survive as we have
been. I just think there are some security issues. But in
Linda's deal in pretrials and court out there, I think this
is a viable deal. We haven't come to Linda with it yet, but
it would be -- I think a lot of her concerns would be worked
out in that, but the timing just hasn't been right to come
talk to Linda.
MS. UECKER: But we've done that before, and
it's a huge problem.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're going to do it a
little bit different to where it doesn't create the huge
9-e os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
~~
L L
23
24
25
44
problem it did for you before. Sut a lot of that is very
feasible, because it is a big security issue bringing 50 and
60 inmates over here instead of bringing one employee out
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to make
sure that -- I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, no, I don't have a
problem, okay? I haven't asked for more officers lately,
except for courthouse security, and that's a -- that's a
call of this Court. And officials here need to make --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I just have a comment. And I
commend Commissioner Nicholson for taking his stand on
cutting back, and I -- and as a department head, I work at
the pleasure of the Court. I'm going to do whatever y'all
ask me to do. $ut one thing I need to remind you is that
when you -- when you cut people, whether it be in my
department or anybody else, there's a certain level of -- of
service that may slow down. I know in my department it'll
slow down somewhat. We won't do the construction -- a lot
of the construction stuff that we currently do; it would be
jobbed out or whatever. I`m not -- this is not a threat.
This is just saying is -- is that when you -- we get in a
comfort zone of people doing certain tasks, and we all -- as
I said, I work at the pleasure of y'all, so I'll do whatever
9-6-u5
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.5
you ask. And the Animal Control thing, if you wish to do
that and save some coins, I'm willing to do whatever you ask
me to. Whatever the Court asks me to. It's -- and, of
course, the juvenile detention thing, that's still -- as far
as I know, there's no definitive answer on it, and there's
another two buildings that we're going to be dealing with or
whatever, so I wanted y'all to keep that in mind. So, I
well understand what you're up against, and I would really
appreciate if we could do a cost-of-living for the
employees, because it's really, really important if we can
do it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll second the
cost-of-living. I think it's more important this year than
any other with -- as we all are dealing with the gas prices
and everything else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with
you, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I'm just
reiterating that.
MS. UECKER: I have a comment on the
cost-of-living, which I agree it should be done. And as
I've talked about every year -- and it seems like, on a
one-on-one basis, you know, you agree with me, but if you're
going to call it a cost-of-living, it should not be by
percentage, because a percentage of a 12-1 is much less than
9-F - Il 7
45
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a percentage of, say, Leonard Odom's salary. And the
gasoline costs exactly the same for this 12-1 as it does for
Leonard Odom or me or anybody else. So, if you're going to
call it a cost-of-living, then it should maybe be averaged
to the percentage and add a flat amount to everybody. A
loaf of bread is the same; doesn't matter who buys it. And
I -- you know, I feel like this is where the cliche, "the
rich get richer and the poor get poorer" -- because if, you
know --
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: Not at 3 percent a
year, they don't.
MS. UECKER: Exactly. But that 3 percent may
still put that person that's a 12-1 in the hole when it
comes to, you know, the increase in gas and bread and
whatever. Which is -- it's still going to have to come out
of their pocket, you know, minus what the cost-of-livinq is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER NICHGLSON: Ms. Uecker, you've
heard me say -- and other Commissioners, and I know you've
heard the Judge say that we'd like to pay people more, and
particularly our lowest paid people; I'd like to increase
their pay. I'd like to lower our payroll and pay people
more, and it can be done.
MS. UECKER: Well, and I understand that, but
that's -- I'm talking about the cost-of-living being
9-h-as
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1°
19
20
21
22
23
24
2t
percentage-wise versus --
COMMISSIONER LETZ; But it's called a
cost-of-living because you -- take the Sheriff. I'd rather
not, but, you know, his salary's higher than a 12-1. Well,
he has a cost-of-living that's higher than a 12-1.
Probably, too, he has a certain lifestyle that he leads
versus somebody else. Based on what you're saying, we
should pay everyone the same.
MS. UECKER: No, that's not exactly -- that's
not at all what I'm saying,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it is. You're
saying the same thing. You're saying we should give flat
increases regardless.
MS. UECKER: No, for cost of living. You've
already set his salary at much higher than everybody else's,
so... (Laughter.) But -- so the cost-of-living should be
the same, because a gallon of gas is $3; I don't care who's
paying it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your
point, and I'm not arguing your point, but a
cost-of-living -- an allowance adjustment is predicated on
the Consumer Price Index„ and it is an indexing of
everybody's salary based on the inflation factors in the
country. That's what it is. It is indexing everybody
upward because of inflation.
y-r-os
48
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2^
L
23
24
25
MS. UECKEP.: Sure it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So part of what
you're -- part of your argument, Linda, is embodied in the
cost-of-living indexing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I mean, yes. I
mean, you're saying that Rusty should take a pay cut versus
a --
MS. DECKER: No, I'm not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because --
MS. DECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it you don't give, you
know, every -- Rusty or any employee -- me, whatever -- the
same percentage, and the cost of living has gone up
3.5 percent this year, anyone that gets less than
3.5 percent salary increase is taking a cut in pay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
MS. DECKER: Well, at 3.5, probably the
12-1's are taking a cut in pay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can be. But at
nothing, it's a bigger cut in pay.
MS. DECKER: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not going to
win this argument.
MS. DECKER: No, I understand that. Well,
you have to figure who's making the decisions, I guess.
~-n-os
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
~5
49
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could start with
reducing the Sheriff's pay.
MS. OECY:ER: We11 --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all finally got it
above the chief deputy's pay last year. Wait a minute.
MS. UECKER: Well, I was just using him as an
example.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of course.
COMMISSIONER WTLLIAMS: He'd much rather you
use a captain on the local police force.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, that would be an
interesting comparison.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, gentlemen. Anything
else?
COMMISSIONEP, WILLIAMS: We've solved all
these problems, right, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we did.
MS. UECKER: I have one more question about
my request during another budget workshop to move 12-1's to
73's and 13's to 14's within the office staff.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: What was the
question?
MS. UECKER: To move the office staff in the
courthouse and Sheriff's Office, those that are 12-1's to
13's, and those that are 13's to 14's. Because 14 seems to
-G-r t.
50
1
2
3
9
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be kind of a blank level.
COMMISSIONER W7LLlAMS: You're asking have we
done that yet?
MS. UECKER: Would you consider that?
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: It's part of -- all
these are part of the considerations. We have not made a
decision yet.
MS. UECKER: I was reiterating my request,
then, ro do that.
COMMISSIONER. NICHOLSON: The number of
proposals on reclassifications or salary adjustments, I
think we just have to go back through here and say yes or no
on each one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another part of your
request was to -- there were certain -- certain employees to
leave at the -- new hires coming in, leave at the 12-1?
MS. UECKER: Well, yeah. And, you know, I'm,
of ccurse, talking about people maybe in Maintenance -- and
that's nothing agaLnst anybody in Maintenance, 'r_ause he has
an excellent staff, But someone may start at a 12-1 there
that may not even speak English, or -- you know, and then
you have to have --
s;-6-os
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Z5
51
MF.. HOLEKAMP: You don't have tc speak
English to clean a commode.
MS. UECKER: Exactly. But they may not.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I wish you wouldn't use that
analogy.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Linda, I'm sorry. I feel real
sensitive about that.
MS. UECKER: Well, and I know --
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's very important to me.
MS. UECKER: Okay, that's fine, and I
apologize for that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: All right.
MS. UECKER: But what I'm saying is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the Sheriff's
fault.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the Sheriff's
fault.
MS. UECKER: What I'm saying is, there is a
certain amount of ability and skills that qo into -- and, I
mean, you have some that are the same way.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand.
MS. UECKER: You should understand.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You made the
argument very eloquently when you were here before.
y-h-os
52
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I've got notes
on it that says --
MS. DECKER: Well, he asked me, you know,
what the --
COMMISSIONER NiCHOLSON: -- move the 12-7 's
to 13-1's, and 13-1's to 14-1's. Isn't that what you said?
MS. DECKER: Yeah. 'Cause you've qot
something that would be affected by that as well.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, yeah. But I'm -- well,
I got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Question I have is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gentleman has his
hand up, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Well, let me go on to
this. Can Tommy go over this newest handout he gave us,
just as to exactly what's in here? I know the two pages,
the COLA amounts are on there. And, Tommy, just looking at
the numbers, I had --
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is today's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, okay. In the one
that we've got today, or late last week, is the COLA in
there?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
9 - 6 - u 5
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
53
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This most recent one,
it's not in there, but you gave us a second sheet with the
costs.
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you gave us a
second sheet that told us what it cost.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a COLA for all
employees is 35,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- that's the --
COMMISSIONER N7CHOLSON: That's at 3.2.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the salary plus
benefits --
COMMISSIONER LETZ; P,ight.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- associated with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Tommy, on this sheet
here, the very bottom one, 1 percent of tax levy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: Is it 1 percent or one
cent?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's one cent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One cent.
-5-us
54
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: That was a subtle little
hint.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I picked it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- if we were to
give a -- a 3.~ percent COLA, that's going to reduce our
general fund down to basically $3 million --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in reserves.
MR. TOMLINSON: That`s correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; And we are -- our policy
is 25 percent?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ; What's 25 percent of
15 million?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, the number you
have right there now is 21.33 percent without the COLA.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without the COLA, so
we're going down well below reserves if we give a COLA in
the current budget. And that does not include the juvenile
detention facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
MF,. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 mean, I think, you
know, the options are to raise ta.ces, which I don't see this
-~,-os
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
L2
23
24
25
55
Court really inclined to do, or cut personnel.
MR. TOMLTNSON: There -- there is -- there's
one, I think, major pitfall in -- in reducing staff below a
certain level, and I think the more -- the more stress you
put on employees, the higher the risk of loss. That --
that's just my opinion. But I think when -- at a certain
level, I think mistakes start to creep in, you know, the
work, and -- or the quality of work. I know that for -- you
know, as far as the Treasurer's office is concerned, there
is -- there is a statute on the books that says that
every -- every deposit shall be made within seven days of
receipt. So, I mean, that -- that puts some pressure on any
fee collection office to have -- you know, to have their
money available, and for the Treasurer to be able to receipt
that money and have it in the bank in seven working days.
You know, and as far as -- I mean, from an
internal control standpoint, T think -- I think it's -- it's
best for -- to have someone receipt funds other than the
person that audits the funds, and that's the reason that we
don't receive funds in our office, because we -- it's kind
of like the fox guarding the henhouse, and because, I mean,
we'd be auditing ourselves. And so, Yrom a control
standpoint, I think it's important that -- that you keep
this in mind, that when -- you know, when you think about,
you know, reducing staff, I just -- as we are right now, I

56
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have a -- I have a high confidence level in fee collection
i offices, because they have -- they have the ability to
segregate their duties and, you know, hand over their
collections to the Treasurer ~n somewhat of a timely manner.
And I -- you know, I don't -- I don't want to lose -- I
don't want to lose that confidence, because if I -- if I
didn't have the confidence, I'd have to ask for two or three
more people to really do my job. So, L think -- I think
there's a down side at certain levels in staff reduction. I
just wanted to point that cut.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just make just a
general point, just a general comment. I hope all the --
everyone in this room watches real closely the next time the
governor tries to put a cap on spending, because a lot of
this is -- what we're going through right now, or part of
it, is because we -- the over-65 freeze went in. That's a
hundred-some thousand that went in there, or 150,000,
whatever that number was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 140.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any cap that comes down
from Austin is going to make this year look like a good
year. If we can't raise the -- I mean, we just don't have a
choice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to point out
that Commissioner Letz voted against that, and 1 voted for
9 - h U ~~
57
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, and I confess that it is a sin, and he's absolutely
right. But, as well, the Juvenile Letention Facility has
cost us right at a million dollars out of our reserves, so
you couple those two items together, and that's kind of
where we are in our reduction,
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I ask the Court to
look back at your courthouse security budget and see what
y'a11 actually penciled in? Make sure we're on the same
page with that amount and what Tommy had figured in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tab 16.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speak up, Sheriff, I
can't hear you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And what Tommy had
figured in.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's two people.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What about the alarm
system? Did you figure that in there? 'Cause they were
going to pencil it in.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think it is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER.: Actually, without
anything, I don't know what your bottom line would be on
that, but if you take out all of that and just figure in
regular salary increase --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My notes say that on
security improvements, ycu were asking for $30,000 to
y n-ns
1
3
4
5
6
7
5
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
15
17
Is
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
58
$90,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, depending on the
system, okay, and on the employees. But if we cut that --
everything back out of there, you're -- except for whatever
the regular employee costs are that's going in, it should go
back really close to what it was this year, which would be
the -- about the 45,000, 47,000 total budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, try to get
the -- the less expensive of the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- grants. If we can get
it through a grant, great. If not, we'll hold a year and
hold the line.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all gave me permission
for some reserves, if you will recall, and if I can find
some good qualified reserves, I can use them in courthouse
security, which was the original intention anyhow. But if
you take out the system -- if we can get it in a grant,
we'll get it in a grant, but it will still hold that overall
budget down to exactly what it is this year. Unless --
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Okay.
SHERIFF HIEF,HOLZER: Depending on the salary
increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we pencil off one.
SHERIFF HIER.HOLZER: It may cut out quite a
3-e-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
bit of what y'all have, 'cause two employees and that
system, if y'all had that system penciled in, there will be
well over 100,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Cut out one employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Quick calculation, that will
cut about 40,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Judge, it's about time I
quit thinking. Some people might say that happened long
ago, but...
JUDGE TINLEY: I wouldn't touch it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; T would recommend that we
recess until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything
else to offer this evening? We wi1L be in recess until
9 a.m. Wednesday, September the 7th, 2005.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 5:37 p.m.)
-~-os
60
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
^1
22
23
~4
25
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 9th day of September,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ~ _
Kathy $~nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~-;-ae